"Leslie P. Polzer" <[email protected]> writes: >> What was the motivation of *override-parent-p*? >> >> Or, more specifically, why does it exist at all and why isn't it true by >> default? I thought that we want to maintain a healthy widget tree at all >> times, which might involve changing the widget's parent sometimes, or >> setting it twice. > > In the original plan each widget could only have one parent. > Even setting another parent was verboten, and accessors > saw to it that this rule was obeyed ("this widget already > has a parent!"). > > So I introduced this variable that would allow one to > specify special situations. > > IMO it would make sense to have multiple parents for widgets, > but I'm not sure how complicated it would be wrt to the > tree model.
I disagree with this -- I believe each widget should only have a single parent. What I meant was that IMHO *override-parent-p* should be true by default, e.g. we should always allow changing the widget's parent. --J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
